DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


5 ae 
— tne 
. 


‘NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT, 


THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THAT AND 


& 
FREE GRACE, IN FORG IV ENESS : 


ri 
ILLUSTRATED IN THREE stscqaa 


™ 


“BY JONATHAN EDWARDS, D.D. 


“Late President of Union College, Schenectady, 
. (New-York.) 


SECOND EDITION. 


GILIF ILL IIS ELLIS EL IEIG IE LLG LOLS 
+ 


PORTLAND: 


PUBLISHED BY A. LYMAN © co. 

‘Also by D. Mallory & Co. Boston Swift & Chipman, 
Middlebury, (Vt.) Beers & Howe, New-Haven + 
Whiting & Co. New-York: D. W, Farrand & 

Green, Albany: B. B. Hopkins & Co,and T. ¥ 
_ Zantzinger & Co. Philadelphia : P. H. aeesty 

* Co. Baltimore : 1. W. Campbell, Petersburgh « (¥ 
and Patterson & pola Pittsburgh. 


rinter,—1811. 


i ae 


/ 


] > THE Div; S. 
NECESSITY vOF ATONEMENT, ke. 


1-2 4) 2 
az 


si 60 Diasec 
S Ez b \/ 
DISCOURSE I. a 


In whom we have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins, according, to Mod riches of his 
lin dl we: 17. 


THE doctrine of the fonsiveteee of 
sins is a capital doctrine of the gospel, 
and is much insisted on by the writers 
of the New Testament : above all, by 
the author of this epistle. In our text, 
he asserts that we are forgiven according 
to the riches of grace : not merely in the 
exercise of grace, as the very term for- 
giveness, implies : but in the exercise of 
the riches of grace : importing that for- 
viveness is an act of the most /ree and 
abundant grace, Yet healso asserts that 
this gratuitous forgiveness is in conse- 
queticeliie redemption by the blood of 
Christ. But how are these two parts of 
the proposition consistent ? If we be in 
the literal sense forgiven in consequence 
of a redemption, we are forgiven on ac- 


4 NECESSITY OF AT 


count of the price | of rec 
viously paid. How 
ly said to be forg 
implies the exe anc 
given accordi he riches of grace § 2 
This is at lez ist a ceming inconsistence, 
If our forgi 1€ 
price « € already paid, it seems to be 
of debt, and net of grace. This 
catty hath occasioned some to reject 
\\ the doctrine of Christ’s redemption, sat- 
isfaction, or atonement, Others, who 
have not been driven to that extremity 
by this difficulty, yet have been exceed- 
ingly perplexed and embarrassed. Of 
these last, I freely confess myself to have 
been one, Aasine from ray youth de- 
voted myself to the study of theoretic 
and practical theology, this has to me 
been one of the gordian knots in that 
science, How far what shall now be 
offered towards a solution, © ought to af- 
ford satisfaction, is submit to the 
judgment of my candid auditors, 
Our text naturally- suggests: these 
three inquiries, . 


eee 


"4 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 5 


a, i» 

ese sinners forgiven through the re- 
/\aiption or atonement of Jesus Christ 
only ? What is the reason or ground of 
this mode of forgiveness ? Is this mode 
of forgiveness coMfastent with grace, or 
according to the riches of grace ? Let us 
consider these in their order. 

I. Are we forgiven through the re- 
demption or atonenfent of Jesus Christ 
only ? I say, redemption or atonement, 
because, in my view, they mutually im- 
ply each other. That we are forgiven 
through the atonement of Christ, and 
can be forgiven in no other way, the 
scriptures very clearly teach. Yor evi- 
dence as to the first of these particulars, 
I. appeal to the following passages of 
scripture, which are indeed but a few of 
the many which exhibit the same truth. 
First, our text itself: ‘“‘In whom we 
have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins, according to the 
riches of his grace.” Romans iii. 24. 
«« Being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Jesus 
Christ.” Acts xx. 28. ‘* To feed the 

church of God, which he hath pur- 


375040 


‘ede, 


6 NECESSITY OF ATO 


chased with his own blood.” Hebrews’ 
ix. 12. ‘* By his own blood he entered 
in once intothe holy place, having obtain- 

ed eternal redemption for us.”” 1 Peter 

i. 18. ‘ Forasmuch’as ye know, that 
ye were not redeeméd with corruptible 
things, as silver and gold, but with the 

precious blood’of Christ, as of a lamb 
without blemish and without spot.”’ 

ibid. chap. ii. 24. ‘* Who his ownself 
, bare our sins, in his own body on the 

tree, that we being dead to sin, should 

live unto righteousness : by whose 

stripes ye were healed.”? Isaiah liii. 4, 

5, 6. ‘* He hath borne our griefs, and 
carried our sortows—he was wounded 
for our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities, the chastisement of 
our peace was upon him, and with his 
stripes we are. healed. The Lord hath 

laid on him the iniquity of us ail.’”? Ibid. 

v. 10, 11, 12: “S Vet atrpleaseteene 

Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him 

to grief; when thou shalt make his 
soul an offering for sin, he shall see his 

seed. He shall bear their iniquities. 

And he bare the sins of many.” 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 


The scriptures also teach the absolute 
necessity of the atonement of Christ, 
and that we can obtain forgiveness and ' 
salvation through that only. ‘The sacri- 
fices appointed to be made by the an- 
cient Israelites, seem evidently to point 
to Christ ; and to show the necessity of 
the vicarious sacrifice of him, who is 
therefore said to be ‘‘ our passover sac- 
rificed for us ;”? and to have’ given him- 
self for us, an offering and a sacrifice to” | 
God, for a sweet smelling savor ;” and 
*¢ now once in the end 3f the world, to 
have appeared, to-_put away sin, by the 
sacrifice of himself.”? 1 Cor. v. 7. 
Eph. v.2. Heb. ix. 26. As, the an-’ 
cient Israelites could obtain pardon in no 
other way than by those sacrifices ; this 
teaches us that we can obtain it only by 
the sacrifice of Christ. 

The positive declarations of the New 
Testament teach the same truth still 
more directly, as Luke xxiv. 25, 26. 
“¢Q fools, and slow of heart to believe 
all that the prophets have spoken ! 
Ought not Christ to have suffered these 
things, and to enter into his glory ?” 


a 
“ 


8 NECESSITY OF AT 


verse 46. ‘ Thus it beh 
suffer, and to rise from the dead the 
third day.” Romans iii. 25, 26. 
“¢ Whom God hath 
propitiation throu 
to declare his rig 
be just, and the justifier of him who 
_ beheveth in Jesus.” It seems that God 
aa Wee been just in justifying 
believer, had not Christ been made 


5 a ee EE, John ii. 14, 15. ** As. 


Moses lifted up the serpent in the wil- 
derness, so must the Son of man be 
lifted up.”” Heb. ix. 22. ** Without 
shedding of blood is no remission.” 
1Cor. i. 11. © ‘* Other foundation can 
no man lay, than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ.”” Acts iv. 12, ** Neither 
is there salvation in any other: forthere 
is no other name, under heaven, given 
among men, whereby we must be 
saved.”’ 

The necessity of the death and atone- 
- ment of Christ sufficiently appears by 
the bare event of his death. If his 
death were not necessary, he died in 
vain. But we cannot suppose that either 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 9 


he or his father would have consented to 
his death, had it not been absolutely nec- 
‘essary. ‘Even a man of common wis- 
dom and goodness, would not consent 
either to his own death or that of his 
son, but in a case of necessity, and in 
order'to some important and valuable 
end, Much less can we suppose, that 
either Christ Jesus the Son would have 
consented to his own death, or that the 
infinitely wise and good Father would 
have consented to the death of his only 
begotten and dearly beloved Son, in 
whom his soul was well pleased, and whe 
was full of grace and truth, the bright- 
ness of his own glory and the express 
Image of his person, the chief among 
ten thousand and altogether lovely, if 
there had not been the most urgent neces- 
sity. Especially as this most excellent 
‘Son so earnestly prayed to the Father, 
to exempt him from death. Mat. xx. 
(39. “‘O my Father, if it be possible, let 
‘this cup pass from me ! Nevertheless 
not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The 
‘Son himself hath told us, John xi. 42. 
* That the Father heareth him always :** 


10‘ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


and therefore we may be sure, that if 
the condition of his pathetic petition had. 
taken ‘place ; if it had been possible, 
that the. designs of God in the salvation 
of sinners should be accomplished, with- 

out the death of Christ ; Christ’s prayer, 
in this instance, would have been an- 
swered, and he would have been ex- 
empted from death. And since he was 
not exempted, we have clear evidence, 

that his death was a matter of absolute 
necessity. 

The necessity of the atonement of 
Christ, is clearly taught by the apostle. 
Gal. ii. 21. “If righteousness come 
by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”? 
It is to no purpose to pretend that the 
law, in this passage means the ceremo- 
nial law; because he tells us, chap. ii. 
Bi That if there had been a law given, 
which could have given life, verily right- 
eousness should have been by the law.?? 
But the moral law was a law which had 
been given; and since no law which had 
been given could give life, it follows, 
that forgiveness and life could not be by 
the moral law, any more than by the cere. 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 11 


monial, and that if they could, Christ is 
dead in vain. 

II. Ournext inquiry is, what is the 
reason or ground of this mode of for- 
giveness ? Or why is an atonement nec- 
essary in order to the pardon of the sin- 
ner? I answer, it is necessary on the 
same ground and for the same reasons, 
as punishment would have been necessa- 
ry, ifthere had been no atonement made. 
The ground of both is the same. The 
question then comes to this: why would 
it have been necessary, if no atonement 
had been made, that punishment should 
be inflicted on the transgressors of the 
divine law? This, I suppose, would 
shave been necessary, Zo maintain the au- 
thority of the divine law. If that be not 
maintained, but the law fall into con- 
tempt, the contempt will fall equally on 
the legislator himself; his authority will 
be despised, and his government weak- 
ened. And as the contempt shall in- 
crease, which may be expected to in- 
crease, in proportion to the neglect of 
ecuting the law; the divine govern- 
ent will approach nearer and nearer to 


i2 NECESSITY or ATONEMENT. 


a dissolution, till at length it will be to- 


tally annihilated. » ‘ 3 
But when moral creatures are brought 


into existence, there must be a moral 
government. It cannot be reconciled 


with the wisdom and goodness of God 
to make intelligent creatures and leave 
them at’ fandoue without moral law and 
government. | This is the dictate of 
reason from the nature of things. Be- 


sides the nature of things, we have in 


the present instance fact, to assist our 
reasoning. God. hath in fact given a 
moral daw and established a moral gov- 
ernment over his intelligent creatures. 
So that we have clear proof, that infinite 
wisdom and goodness judged it to be 
necessary, to put intelligent creatures 
under moral law and coverhment. But 
in order to -a moral law, there must be | 
a penaity ; otherwise it would be meve 
advice, but no law. In order to supe 
port the authority and vigor of this law, 
the penalty must be inflicted on trans: | 
gressors. Ifa penalty be denoun 
dded, but never inflicted ;. the Jaw” 
comes no law, as really as if no penalty 


ad 


er a) 
NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 15 


had been annexed to it. As well might 
no law have been made or published, 
with all the most awful penalties, and 
these never be inflicted. Nay, in some 
respects it would be much better and 
more reconcileable with the divine 
perfections. It would be more consist- 
ent, and shew that the legislator was not 
ignorant, either of his own want of power 
to car ry a law into effect, or of the rights 
of his subjects, or of the boundaries be- 
tween right and wrong. But to enact 
a law and not execute it, implies a weak- 
ness of some kind or other : either an 
error of judgment, or a consciousness 
of a depraved design in making the law, 
or a want of power to carry it into effect, 
or some other defect. ‘Therefore such 
a proceeding as this is dishonorable and 
contemptible ; and by it, both the law 
and legislator not only appear in a con- 
temptible light, but really are con- 
temptible. 
_ Hence, to execute the threatening of 
i the divine law, is necessary to preserve 
the dignity and authority ofthe law, and 
of the author of it, and to the very exist- 
7 2 


* Oe wae 
14 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


ence of the divine moral government. 
It is no impeachment of the divine 
power and wisdom, to say, that it is 
impossible for God himself to uphold 
his moral government, over intelligent 
creatures, when once his law hath fallen 
into contempt. He may indeed govern 
them by irresistible force, as he governs 
the material world : but he cannot gov- 
ern them by law, by rewards and pun- 
ishments. 

If God maintain the authority of his 
law, by the infliction of the penalty, it 
will appear, that he acts consistently in 
the legislative and executive parts of his 
government. But if he were not to in- 
flict the penalty, he would act and appear 
to act, an inconsistent part ; or to be in- 
consistent with himself. If the authority 
of the divine law be supported by the 
punishment of transgressors, it will most 
powerfully tend to restrain all intelligent 
creatures from sin. But if the authority 
of the law be not supported, it will 
rather encourage and invite to sin, than 
restrain from it. 

For these reasons, which are fntieed 
all implied in supporting the dignity and 


y ——-~ "ae 
| © NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. I5 


authority of the divine law, it would 
have been necessary, had no atonement 
| for sin been made, that the penalty of 
| the law be inflicted on transgressors. 

| - If in this view of the matter, it should 
| be said, Though for the reasons before 
| mentioned, it is necessary that the pen- 
| alty of the law, in many instances, or in 
| most instances, be inflicted ; yet why is 
) it necessary, that it should be inflicted 
| in every instance ? Why could not the 
Deity, in a sovereign way, without any 
atonement, have forgiven at least some 
| sinners ? Why could not the authority 
| of the law have been sufficiently ysup- 
| ported, without the punishment of every 
| mdividual transgressor? We find that 
such strictness is not mecessary or even 
| subservient to the public good, in hu- 
| man governments: and why is it nec- 
| essary in the divine ? To these inquiries 
| I answer, by other inquiries. Why, 
on the supposition of no atonement, 
| would it have been necessary, that the 
| penalty of the law should be inflicted in 
| any instance? Why could not the 
| Deity in a sovereign way, without any 


16 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.  » 


‘ ty 
atonement, have pardoned all mankind ? 
I presume it will be granted, for the 
reasons before assigned, that such a pro- 
ceeding as this, would be inconsistent 
with the dignity and authority of the 
divine law and government. And the 
same consequence in a degree, follows 
from every instance of pardon in this 
mode. It is true the ends of human 
governments are tolerably answered, 
though in some instances the guilty are 
suffered to pass with impunity. But as 
imperfection attends all human affairs ; 
so it attends human governments in 
this very particular, that there are rea- 
sons of state which require, or the pub- 
lic good requires, that gross criminals, 
in some instances, be dismissed with 
impunity, and without atonement. Thus, 
because the government of David was 
weak, and the sons of Zeruiah were too 
hard for him, Joab, a most atrocious 
murderer, could not, during the life of 
David, be brought to justice. In other 
instances, atrocious criminals are par- 
doned, in order to obtain information 
against others still more atrocious, and 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 17 


dangerous to the community. In many 
instances, the principals only in certain 
high crimes, are punished : the rest be- 
ing led away by artifice and misrcpre- 
sentation, are not supposed to deserve 
punishment. And it is presumed, that 
In every instance, wherein it is really for 
the good of the community, to pardon 
a criminal, without proper satisfaction 
for his crime ; it 1s because of either 
some weakness in the particular state of 
the government, under which the par- 
don is granted ; or some imperfection 
in the laws of that state, not being adapt- 
ed to the particular case ; or some im- 
nerfection attending all human’ ire 
Bat as not any of these is supposable in 
the divine government, there is no ar- 
guing conclusively, from pardons in 
humen governments, to pardons in the 
divine. ; 

It may be added, that in every instance 
in human governments, in which just 
laws are strictly executed, the govern- 
ment is so far weakened, and the char- 
acter of the rulers either legislative or 
executive, sufiers, either in point of abil- 

Q* 


oe 


18 NECESSITY OF ATO MENT. 


ity or in point of siasig If it be 
granted that the law is just, and con- 
demns sin tono greater punishment than 
it deserves, and if God were to pardon 
it without atonement, it would seem, 
that he did not hate sin in every instance, 
nor treat it as being what it really 1 ly, 
infinitely vile. 

For these reasons it appears that it 
would have been necessary, provided no 
atonement had been’made, that the pen- 
alty of the law should have been inflict- 
ed, even in every instance of disobedi. 
ence : and for the same reasons Coubt- 
less was it necessary, that if any sinners 
were to be pardoned, they should be 
pardoned only in consequence of an 
adequate atonement. ‘The atonement 
is the substitute for the punishment 
threatened in the law ; and was designed 
to answer the same ends of supporting 
the authority of the law, the dignity of 
the divine moral government, and the 
consistency of the divine conduct in 
legislation and execution. By the atone- 
ment it appears that God is determined 
that his law shall be supported; that it 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 19 


shall not be despised or transgressed with 


impunity ; and that it is an evil anda 
bitter thing to sin against God. 

The very idea of an atonement or sat- 
isfaction for sin, is something which, to 
the purposes of supporting the authority 
of the divine law, and the dignity and 
consistency of the divine government, is 
equivalent to the punishment of the sin- 
ner, according to the literai threatening 
of the law. ‘That which answers these 


purposes being done, whatever it be, 
atonement is made, and the. way is pre- 


pared for the dispensation of pardon. 
‘In any such case, God can be just and 
pet the justifier of the simner. And that 
that which is sufficient to answer these 


purposes, has been done for us accord- 


ing to the gospel plan, I presume none 
can deny, who believe, that the eternal 
word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
us, and that he the only begotten and 
well beloved Son of God, John i. 14. 
bare our sins in his own body on the 
tree. 1 Peter 11. 24. and gave were a 
sacrifice to God for us. Eph. ¥. 2: 

But perhaps some who may readily 


t. ot A 
20 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


grant that what Christ hath done and 
suffered, is undoubtedly sufficient *to 
atone for the sins of his people; may 
also suppose that if God had seen fit so 
to order it, we might have made a suf- 
ficient atonement for our own sins. Or 
whether they believe in the reality and 
sufficiency of the atonement of Christ or 
not, they may suppose that we might 
have atoned, or even now may atone, 
for our own sins. ‘This hypothesis 
therefore demands our attention. 

If we could have atoned, by any 
means, for our own sins, it must have 
been either by our repentance and refor- 
mation, or by enduring a punishment, 
less in degree or duration, than that 
which is threatened in the law as the 
wages of sin. No other way for us to 
atone for our own sins appears to be 
conceivable. But if we attend to the 
subject, we shall find that we can make" 
no proper atonement in either of these 
ways. 

1. We could not make atonement 
for our sins by repentance and reforma- 
tion. Repentance and reformation are 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 21 


a mere return to our duty, which we 
ought-never to have forsaken or inter- 
mitted. Suppose a soldier deserts the 
service into which he is enlisted, and at 
the most critical period not only forsakes 
his general and the cause of his country, 
but joins the enemy and exerts himself 
to his utmost in his cause, and in direct 
opposition to that of his country; yet 
aiter twelye months spent in this man- 
ner, he repents and returns to his duty 
and his former service; will this re- 
pentance and reformation atone for his 
desertion and rebellion ? wiil his repen- 
tance and return, without punishment, 
support the authority of the law against 
desertion and rebellion, and deter others 
from the like conduct equally as the 
punishment of the delinquent according 
to law ? It cannot be pretended. Such 
a treatment of the soldier would express 
no indignation or displeasure of the 
general at the conduct of the soldier: it 
would by no means convince the army 
or the world, that it was a most heinous 
crime to desert and join the standard of 
the enemy. Just so in the case under 


22 +NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


consideration : the language of forgiv- 
ing sinners barely on their repentance 
is, that he who sins shall repent; that 
the curse of the law is repentance ; that 
he who repents shall suffer, and that he 
deserves no further punishment. But 
this would be so far from an effectual 
tendency to discourage and restrain 
from sin, that it would greatly encour- 
age to the commission and indulgence 
of it ; as all that sinners would have to 
fear, on this supposition, would be not 
the wrath of God, not any thing terrible, 
but the greatest blessing to which any 
man in this life can attain, repentance. 
If this were the condition of forgiving 
sinners, not only no measures would be 
taken .to support the divine law, but 
none to vindicate the character of God 
himself, or to shew that he acts a con- 
sistent part, and agreeably to his own 
l2w ; or that he is a friend to virtue and 
an enemy to vice. On the other hand, 
he would rather appear as a friend to sin 
and vice, or indifferent concerning them. 
What would you think of a prince who 
should make a law against murder, and 


~  WECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 23 


should threaten it with a punishment 
properly severe ; yet should declare 
that none who should be guilty of that 
crime and should repent, should be 
punished ? or if he did not positively 
declare this, yet should in fact suffer all 
murderers who repented of their mur- 
ders, to pass with impunity ? Undoubt- 
edly you would conclude that he was 
either a very weak or a very wicked 
prince ; either that he was unable to 
protect his subjects, or that he had no 
real regard to their lives or safety, 
whether in their individual or collective 
capacity. ; 

2. Neither could we make atone- 
ment by any sufferings short of the full 
punishment of sin. Because the very 
idea of atonement is something done, 
which to the purpose of supporting the 
authority of the law, the dignity and 
consistency of divine government and 
conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse 
of the law, and on the ground of which, 
the sinner may be saved from that 
curse. But no sufferings endured by 
the sinner himself, short of the curse of 


\ 


24 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


the law, can be to these purposes equiva- 
lent to that curse ; any more than a less 
number or quantity can be found equal to 
agreater. Indeed a less degree or dura- 
tion of suffering endured by Christ the 
Son of God, may, on account of the 
infinite dignity and glory of his person, 
be an equivalent to the curse of the law 
endured by the sinner : as it would be 
a far more striking demonstration of a 
king’s displeasure, to inflict, in an igno- 
minious manner, on the body of his 
own son, forty stripes save one; than 
to punish some obscure subject with 
death. But when the person is the 
same, it is absurd to suppose that a less 
degree or duration of pain can be equal 
to a greater, or can equally strike terror 
into the minds of spectators, and make 
them fear and no more do any such 
wickedness. Deut. xin. 11. 

Besides; if a less degree or duration 
of punishment, inflicted on the sinner, 
would answer all the purposes of sup- 
porting the authority of the divine law, 
&c. equally as that punishment which 
is threatened in the law ; it follows that 


ag 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 25 


the punishment which is threatened in 


the law is too great, is unjust, is. cruel 


‘and oppressive: which cannot be as 


long as God is a just being. 
Thus it clearly appears, that we could 
never have atoned for our own sins. If 


therefore atonement be made at all, it 


must be made by some other person : 
and since as we before argued, Christ - 


“the Son of God hath been appointed to 


this work, we may be sure, that it could 
be done by no other person of inferior 
dignity. 

It may be inquired of those who deny 
the necessity of the atonement of Christ, 
whether the mission, work and death of 
Christ were at all necessary in order to 
the salvation of sinners. If they grant 
that they were necessary, as they exhib- 
it the strongest motives to repentance ; 
I ask further, could not God by any 
revelation or motives otherwise, whether 
externally or internally, exhibited, lead 
sinners to repentance ? We find he did 
in fact, without the mission, work and 
death of Christ, lead the saints of the 
Old Testament to repentance. And 

Q 
da 


= HY j 

26 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 
doubtless in the same way, he might 
have produced the same effect, on men 
of modern times. Why then doth the 
scripture say, ‘* Other foundations can 
no man lay, than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ :’? and, ‘ neither i is there 
salvation in any other 2” If it be said 
that these texts are true, as God hath 
seen fit to adopt and establish this mode 
of salvation : it occurs at once, that then 
it may with equal truth be said, con- 
cerning those who were. converted by 
the preaching of Paul; other founda- 
tion could no man lay, for their salvation, 
than the apostle Paul. In this sense 
too every event which ever takes place, 
is equally necessary as the mission and 
death of Christ : and it was in no other 
sense necessary, that Christ should be 
sent and die, than that a sparrow should 
fall, or not fall, to the ground. In 
short to’ say, that the mission and death 
of Christ were necessary, because God 
had made this constitution, is to resolve. 
all into the sovereignty of God, and to 
confess that no reason of Christ’s_ mis- 
sion and death is assignable. 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ° 27 


Besides ; if the mission, death and 
resurrection of Christ, and the knowl- 
edge of them, be, by divine constitution, 
made necessary to the salvation of sin- 
ners; this will seem to be wholly 
inconsistent with the fundamental prin. 
ciple of the system of those who deny . 
the atonement of Christ; I mean the 
principle, that it is not reconcileable 
with the perfections of God, to refuse a 
pardon to any who repent. If bare 
repentance and reformation be the 
ground of pardon, doubtless all who 
repent, though ever so ignorant of 
Christ, his death and resurrection, and 
of the motives to repentance therein 
exhibited, are entitled to pardon ; and 
if so, in what sense will the Socinians 
‘say, the mission and death of Christ are 
necessary to pardon ? Not surely as 
purchasing salvation, for even those who 
are ignorant of them ; this is abhorrent 
to their whole system. Not as exhibit- 
ing the strongest motives to repentance ; 
because in the case now supposed, these 
motives are perfectly unknown. And 
they will not say, it is impossible for 


i 
i 
H 


28 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


any to repent, who are feseohe of 
Christ. * 

Again, how is it more consistent 
with the divine perfections, to confine 
pardon and salvation to the narrow 
limits of those who know and are influ-' 
enced by the motives to repentance, 
implied in the death and resurrection of 
Christ; than to the limits of those who 
repent and depend on the atonement of 
Christ ? 

It may be further Seale of those 
gentlemen mentioned above, whether 
the pardon of the penitent, be according 
to the divine law, or according to the 
gospel. If it be a.constitution of ihe 
law, that every penitent be pardoned, 
what then is the gospel ? And wherein 
does the grace of the latter, exceed that 
of the former? Besides, is it not 
strange, to suppose that bare law knows 
any thing of repentance and of the 


. 


* ¢Tt is certainly the doctrine of reason, as well as 
of the Old Testament, that God is merciful to the 
penitent, and nothing is requisite to make men, in all 
situations, the objects of his favor, but such poral 
conduct as he has made them capable of.” 

Priestly, Corruptions of christianity, page 979. 


7 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 29 


promise of pardon on repentance ? 
Surely such a law must be a very gra- 
cious law: anda very gracious law and 
a very gracious gospel seem to be very 
nearly one and the same thing. It has 
been commonly understood that the 
divine law is the rule of justice. Ifso, 
and it be a provision of the law, that 
every penitent be acquitted from pun- ~ 
ishment; then surely there is no grace 
at all in the acquittal of the penitent, as 
the gentlemen. io whom I now refer, 
pretend there is none on the supposition 
of the satisfaction of Christ. Again ; 
if the law secure impunity to all peni- 
tents, then all the terror or punishment 
which the law. threatens, is either 
| repentance’ itself, or that wise and 
wholesome discipline which is neces- 
sary to lead to repentance ; these are 
the true and utmost curse of the law. 
- But neither of these is any curse at all ; 

they are at least among the greatest 
_ blessings which can be bestowed on 
_ those who need them. But if it be 
- granted that the bare law of God does 


not secure pardon to the penitent, but 
Q% 
vw 


30 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. — 


admits of his punishment, it will follow 
that the punishment of the penitent 
would be nothing opposed to justice. 
Surely God hath not made an unjust 
law. It also follows, that to punish the 
penitent would be not at all inconsistent 
with the divine perfections; unless God 
hath made a law, which cannot in any 
instance be executed consistently with 
his own perfections. And if the pun- 
ishment of the penitent, provided no 
atonement had been made, would not 
‘be inconsistent with justice, or with the 
perfections of God, who will say, that 
the pardon of the penitent, on the sole 
footing of an atonement, is inconsistent 
with either ? 

If neither strict justice, nor the divine 
law founded on justice, nor the divine 
perfections, without an atonement, se- 
cure pardon to all who repent, what will 
become of the boasted argument of the 
Socinians, against the atonement, that 
God will certainly pardon and sa¥e, and 
that it is absurd and impious to suppose, 
that he will not pardon and saye, all 
who repent? Are the Socinians them- 


' NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 31 


‘ 


selves certain, that God will not do that 
which. eternal justice, his own law, and 
his own perfections allow him to do ?. 
The dilemma is this: eternal justice 
either requires that every penitent be 
pardoned in consequence of his repent- 
ance merely, or it does not. If it do 
require this, it follows, that pardon is 
an act of justice and not of grace: 
therefore let the Socinians be for ever 
silent on this head. It also follows, 
that repentance answers, satisfies, fulfils, 
the divme law, so that, in consequence 
of it, the law has no further demand on 
the sinner. It is therefore either the 
complete righteousness of the law,’ or 
the complete curse of the law: for 
cursed is every one that continucth not 
in all things written in the book of the 
law todothem. It also follows, that sin 
is no moral evil. Doubtless that which 
deserves no punishment, or token of the 
divine displeasure, is no moral evil. 
But the utmost that justice, on this 
hypothesis, requires of the simmer, is 
repentance, which is no token of the 
divine displeasure, but an inestimalic 


$2 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


biessing. It also follows, that as eternal 
justice is no other than the eternal law 
of God, grace and truth, life and im- 
Mortality came and were brought to 
light by Moses, since the law came by 
him ; ; that the law contains exceeding 
great and precious promises, which 
promises however, exceeding great and 
precious as they are, are no more than 
parce, that we shall not be injured. 

follows in the last place that justice 
and grace, law and gospel are perfectly 
synonymous terms. 

Or if the other part of the dilemme 
be taken, that cternal justice does not 
require, that every penitent be pardon. 
ed; who knows but that God may see 
fit, to suffer justice, in some instances, 
to take place? who will say that the 
other divine perfections are utterly 
inconsistent with justice ? or that wis. 
dom, goodness and justice’ cannot co. 
exist in the same character ? or that che 
jaw of God is such that it cannot bg 
executed in any instance, consistently 
with the divine character 2* Thes« 


* That law in which Paul delighteth after the 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 


~ 


would be bold assertions indeed : let 
him who avows them, at the same time 
prove them. Indeed he must either 
prove these assertions, or own that. 
justice requires the pardon of every 
penitent, and abide the consequences ; 
or renounce the doctrine, that the divine 
perfections require that every penitent 
be pardoned without an atonement.* 


ae + 


DISCOURSE II. 


/ 


- HAVING, in the preceding dis- 
course, given an answer to the two 
inquiries proposed concerning the ne- 
cessity, and the ground of the necessity 


inward man; which he declares to be hely, and just, 
and good ; to be glorious too, nay, in the abstract, 
glory : Rom. vii. and 2. Cor. iii. and which David 
protiounces to be perfect, and more desirable than 
gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than 
honey and the honey comb. Psalm xix. 
* & Apouments drawn from such considerations as 
hose of the moral government of God, the nature of 
things, and the general plan of revelation, will not be 
ut off toa future time. The whole compass and 
‘force of them is within our reach, and if the mind! be 
unbiassed, they must, 1 think, determine our assent.” 
Corruptions of christianity, vol. i. page 278. 


- alle alte | -_* 
$4 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


of the atonement of Christ. I proceed 
to the third, which is, 

III. Are we, notwithstanding the 
redemption of Christ, forgiven freely by 
grace 2? That we should be forgiven 
wholly through the redemption of 
Christ, and yet by free grace, hath, as 
I observed, appeared to many, a grand 
inconsistency, or a perplexing difficulty. 
In discoursing on this question, I shall, 

1. Mention several modes in which 
attempts have been made to solve this 
difficulty. ; 2. I shall suggest some 
considerations which may possibly lead 
to the true solution. 

First. I am to mention several modes, 
in which attempts have been made, to 
solve this difficulty. 

1. Some allow that there is no exer- 
cise of grace in the bare pardon* or 
justification of the sinner: that all the 
grace of the gospel consists in the gift 
- of Christ ; in providing an atonement ; 

* The impropriety of expression, in speaking of 
pardon without grace, would need an apology, were 
it not common in treatises on this subject. No more 


is intended, than that the sinner is acquitted ar re- 
leased, without grace. 


—— 


’ 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 


in the undertaking of Christ to make 
atonement, and in the actual making it. 
And as the pardon of the sinner is 
founded on those gracious actions ; so 
that ma more lax sense is also said to 
be an act of grace. As to this account 
of the matter, I have to observe—That 
it is rather yielding to the objection, 
than answering it. It is allowed, in this 
state of the matter, that the pardon of 
the sinner is properly no act of grace. 
But this seems not to be reconcileable 
with the plain declarations of scripture ; 
is in our text; In whom we have 
‘redemption through his blood, the for- 
siveness of sins, according to the riches 
fhis grace. Being justified freely by 
is grace, through the redemption that 
s in Jesus Christ. Rom. iii. 24. 
hese and such like passages seem 
lainly to import, that pardon itself is 
n act of grace, and not merely that it 
s founded on other acts,which are acts 
_grace. Besides the very idea of 
rdon or forgiveness implies grace. So 
r only is any crime pardoned, as it is 
rdoned graciously. To pardon a 


7 = 
36 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


crime on the footing of justice, in th 
proper sense’ of the word justice, is: 
direct contradiction. 

Again ; it is not-proper to say, wa 
the pardon of the sinner is an*act o 
grace, merely because it is founded oi 
the gracious gift of Christ, and hi 
gracious act in making atonément. ] 
is not proper to say, that any act is a 
act of grace, merely because it is founder 
on another act, which is really an act c 
grace. AS well we may say, that if - 
creditor, by a third person, furnish hi 
debtor with money sufficient to dis 
charge his debt, when the debtor ha 
paid, in this way, the full debt, itis a 
act of grace in the creditor to give u 
the obligation. Whereas, who doe 
not see that ithe furnishing of the mone 
and the giving up of the obligation, ai 
two distinct acts, and however the : 
mer is indeed an act of grace; yet th 
latter is no more an act of grace, than ’ 
the money had been paid to some oth r 
creditor, and he had given up an obli 
tion for the same sum. If it be an « 
of grace in the creditor, to deliver up 


! aa | 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 37 


: 


‘dbligation, for which he hath received 
‘the full sum, because the money paid 
‘was originally furnished by himself, 
then it would be consistent with justice 
in the creditor, to retain the obligation, 
after he has received the full sum for 
which it -was given; or to reject the 
money, and cast the creditor into prison, 
though he tenders payment. But 
neither of these, I presume, will be 
pretended to be just. ‘ 
: 2: Some have attempted to relieve 
the difficulty now under consideration, 
in this manner: they say, the pardon 
at the sinner is no act of grace to Christ, 
because he has paid the debt for the sin- 
si : but that it is an act of grace to the 
inner, because the debt was paid, not 
y the sinner himself, but by Christ. 
or was Christ so much as delegated 
y the sinner to pay his debt: Cone 
cerning this I observe, in the first place : 
that if the atonement of Christ be con- 
idered as the payment of a debt, the 
elease of the sinner seems not to be an 
ct of grace, although the payment be 
fade by Christ, and not by the sinner 
4 


by a servent, a friend, 
third person? Here F am s 
objection will arise to this 
we did not send the 
debt to God, by the hand of € 
eur friend : Pagers geoe occa 
make atonement for as he wa 
graciously appointed and given by God 
objectio 


ain this I answer, that “this 

places the whole grace of the gospel x 
providing the Savior, not in the 

ofsin. Besides; if by delegating Christ 
be meant such a simcere consent ax 
earnesi desire, that Christshould mak. 
atonement for us, as a’man may have 
that his iniend should discharge a.deb 
in his behalf; without doubt ever 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 39 


frue christian, in this sense, delegates 
Christ to niake atonement for his sins. — 
id not Abraham and all the saints who 
lived before the incarnation of Christ, 
and who were informed that atonement 
as to be made for them by Christ, 
sincerely consent to it, and earnestly 
desire it ? And though now Christ has 
ctually made atonement, yet every one 
who walks in the steps of the faith of 
braham, is the subject of the like sin- 
ere consent to the office and work of 
(Christ, and the like earnest desire, that 
by his atonentent, a reconciliation may 
s effected between God and himself. 
o that if Christ have, in the proper 
sense of the words, paid the debt for 
his people, his people do as truly send 
ve to make this payment, as a man 


ver sends his friend to make payment 
‘© his creditor. 

Nor is any thing wanting to make any 
an, or all men, in this sense, delegate 
shrist to make atonement for them, but 

he gift of repentance or a new heart. 
nd if God had not prevented them by 
reviously appointing Christ to the 


40 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


work of redemption, all mankind being’ 
brought to repentance, and being in- 
formed that Christ, on their consent and 
delegation, ‘would make atonement for 
their sins, would freely have given their 
consent, and delegated him tothe work, 

But what if the: people of Christ did 
not, in any sense, delegate him to this 
work 2? would this cause the payment of 
their debt by Christ, to be at all more 
consistent with free grace in their dis- 
’ charge ? Suppose a man without any 
delegation, consent, or knowledge of 
his friend, pays the full demand of his 
creditor, it is manifest, that the creditor 
is obliged in justice to discharge the 
debtor, equally as if the agent had acted 
by delegation from the debtor. Or if 
we had in every sense delegated and 
commissioned Christ, still our pardon 
would be an act of grace, as still. we 
should be treated more favorably than 
our personai characters deserve. 

Now to apply the whole of this to the 
subject before us: if Christ haye, in 
the proper sense of the words, paid the 
debt which we owed to God, whether 


- 


"NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 41 


by a delegation from us or not; there 
can be no more grace in our disvharge, 
than if we had paid it ourselves. 

But the fact is, that Christ has not, in 
the literal and proper sense, paid the 
debt for us. It is indeed true, that our 
deliverence is called a redemption, which 
refers to the deliverance of a prisoner 
out of captivity, commonly effected by . 
paying a certain sum as the price of his 
liberty. In the same strain, Christ is 
said to give himself a ransom for many, 
and christians are said to be bought with 
a price, &c. All which scripture ex- 
pressions bring into view the payment 
of money, or the discharge of a debt. 
But it is to be remembered, that these 
te metaphorical expressions, therefore 
not literally and exactly true. We had 
ot deprived God of his property : we 
had not robbed the treasury of heaven. 
xod was possessed of as much property 
fier the fall as before ; the universe and 
the fulness thereof still remained to be 
ms. Therefore when Christ made sat- 
sfaction for us, he refunded no property. 
is none had been taken away, none 
4% ' . 


* 


ry I. «eave 
42 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


necded to be refunded. But we had 
rebelled against God, we had practically 
despised his law and. authority, and. it 
was necessary, that his authority should 
be supported, and that it should be made 
to appear, that sin shall not go without 
proper tokens of divine displeasure and 
abhorrence ; that God will maintain 
his law ; that his authority and govern- 
ment shall not be suffered to fall into 
contempt ; and that Ged is a friend to 
virtue and holiness, and an irreconcilea- 
ble enemy to transgression, sin and vice. 
These things were necessary to be mad¢ 
nianifest, and the clear manifestation o! 
these things s, if we will use the term, was 
the debt which was due to God, This 
manifestation was made in the sufferings 
and death of Christ. But Christ did 
not, in the literal sense, pay the debt w« 
owed to God; if he had paid it, all 
grace would have been excluded from 
the pardon of the sinner. Therefore, 

3. Others seeing clearly that these 
solutions of the difficulty are not satis. 
factory, have said, that the atonement o 
Christ ‘consisted, not in the payment 0} 


. 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 43 


a. debt, but in the vindication of the 
divine law and character : that Christ 


made this: vindication, by practically 
declaring the justice of the law, in his 
active obedience, and by submitting to 


the penalty of it, in his death : that as 


what Christ did and suffered in the flesh, 

was a declaration of the rectitude of the 
divine law and character, so it was a 
declaration of the evil of sin; and the 
_ greater the eyil of sin appears to be, the 
greater the grace of pardon appears to 
be. - Therefore the atonement of Christ 
is so far from diminishing the grace of 
_ pardon, that it magnifies it. The sum 
_of this is, that since the atonement con- 


sists, not in the payment of a debt, but 
| in the vindication of the divine law and 


character ; therefore it is not at all 
opposed to free grace in pardon. 
Concerning this stating of the matter, 
I beg leave to observe; that if by avin- 
dication of the divine law and character, 


_be meant, proof given that the law of 
God is just, and that. the divine charac- 


ter is good and irreproachable ; I can 
by no means suppose, that the atonement ‘ 


44 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


consisted in a vindication of the law and 
character of God. ‘The law is no more 
proved to be just, and the character of 
God is no more proved to be good, by 
the perfect obedience and death of Christ, 
than the same things are proved by the 
perfect obedience of the angels, and by 
the torments of the damned. But I 
shall have occasion to enlarge on this 
point by and by. 

Again ; if by vindication of the di- 
vine law and character, be meant, proof 
given that God is determined to support 
the authority of his law, and that he 
will not suffer it to fall into contempt ; 
that he will also support his own dignity, 
will act a consistent part in legislation 

and in the execution of his law, and will 
not be disobeyed with impunity, or 
without proper satisfaction: I grant, 
that by Christ the divine law and charac- 
ter are vindicated ; so that God can now 
consistently with his own honor, and the 
authority of his law, forgive the sinner. 
But how does this make it appear that 
there is any grace in the pardon of the 
sinner, when Christ as his substitute, 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 45\ 


hath made full atonement for him, by 
vindicating the law and character of 
God ? what if the sinner himself, instead 
of..Christ, had by obedience and suffer- 
ing, vindicated the law and character of 
God ; and in consequence had been re- 
leased from farther punishment ? Would 
his release in this case, have been by | 
grace, or by justice ? Doubtless by 
the latter and not by the former: for 
to him that worketh, is the reward 
reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.” 
Rom. iv. 4. Therefore why is it not 
equally an act of justice, to release the 
sinner, in consequence of the same 
vindication made by Christ ?. Payment 
of debt equally precludes grace, when 
made by a third person, as when made 
by the debtor himself. And since the 
vindication of the divine law and charac- 
ter, made by the sinner himself, pre- 
cludes grace from the release of the 
sinner; why does not the same vindica- 
io as effectually preclude it, when 
nade by a third person ? 

_ Those authors who give us this solu- 
tion of the difficulty under consideration, 


| AG NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


seem to suppose that it is a sufficient so- 
lution to say that the atonement consists, 
not in the payment of debt, but in the 
vindication of the divine law and charac- 
ter; and what they say, seems to imply, 
that however or by whomsoever, that 
vindication be made, whether by the 
sinner himself, or any other person, it is 
not at all opposed to the exercise of grace 
in the release of the sinner. Whereas 
it appears by the text just now quoted 
~and by many others, that if that vindica- 
tion were made by the sinner himself, it 
would shut out all grace from his: re- 
lease. And I presume this will be 
granted. by those authors themselves, on 
a little reflection. ‘To say otherwise, is 
to say, that though a sinner should en- 
dure the curse of the law, yet there 
would be grace in his subsequent release’ 
—it seems then that the grace of pardon 
depends, not barely on this, that the 
atonement consists ina vindication of the 
law and character ofGod; but upon this 
particular circumstance attending the 
vindication, that it be made by a third 
person. And if this circumstance will 


4 


j 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 47 


leave room for grace in the release of the 
sinner, why is there not as much grace 
in the release of the sinner, though the 
atonement of Christ be a payment of the 
sinner’s debt: since the payment is at- 
tended with the same important and 
decisive circumstance, that it is made 
by a third person ? 

Objection. .But we could not vindi- 
eate the law and character of God ; there- 
fore itisabsurd to make the supposition, 
and to. draw consequences from the sup- 
position, that we had made such a vin- 

-dication. 

| Answer. It is no more absurd to 

make this supposition, than it is to make 
the supposition, that we had puid the 
debt to divine justice ; for we could no 
more do this than we could make the 
vindication m question. And if it fol- 
lows from this circumstance, that we 
neither have vindicated nor could vindi- 
| cate the divine character, that our release 
from condemnation is an act of grace; 
why does it not also follow from the cir- 
eumstance, that we neither have paid 
nor could pay the debt to divine justice, 


SH oy 


AS NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. a 


“- 

that cur release is anvact of grace, even 
on the supposition, that Christ has in 
the literal sense paid the debt for us’? , 

‘Thus, not any of these modes of solv- 
ing this grand difiiculty, appears to 
be satisfactory. Even this last, which 
scemed to bid the fairest to afford satis- 
faction, fails. Therefore, 

Secondly. I shall suggest some con- 
siderations, which may possibly lead tg 
the true solution. ‘Phe quéstion before 
us, is, whether pardon through the atone- 
ment of Christ be an act of justice or 
of grace. In order to.a proper answer 
to this question, it is of primary impor- 
tance, that we have clear and determin 
ateideas affixed to the words justice an 
grace. 

I find the word justice to be use 
in three distinct senses :* sometimes. i 
means commutative justice, sometime 
distributive justice, and sometime 
what may be called gene or public 
justice. 

Commutative justice respects propert 

and matters of commerce solely, and 
cures to every man his own property 


| NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 4g 


‘To treat a man justly in this sense, is 

‘not to deprive him of his property, and 
‘whenev er it falls into our hands, to re- 
‘store it duly, or to make due payment 

‘of debts: In one word, commutative 
justice is to violate no man’s property. 

Distributive justice consists in prop- 
lerly rewarding virtue or good conduct, 
and punishing crimes or vicious con- 
duct ; ; and it has respect to a man’s per- 
Sonal moral character or conduct. To 
treat a man justly in this sense, is to 
feat him according te his personal char- 
acter or conduct. “Commutative justice 
in the recovery of debts, has no respect 
at all to the character or conduct of the 
‘debtor, but merely to the property of the 
ereditor. Distributive justice in the pun- 
lishment of crimes, has no respect at all 
to the property Of the criminal; but - 
merely to his personal conduct : unless 
his property may, in some instances, 
‘enhance his crimes. 

General or public justice comprehends 
all’ moral goodness : and though the 
Word is often used in this sense, it 1s 
really an improper use of it. In this 

5 - 


60 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


serse, whatever is right, is said to_be 
just, or an act of justice ; and whatever 
is wrong or improper to be done, i is said 
to be unjust, or an act of injustice. Tc 
practise justice in this sense, is to prac- 
tise agreeably to the dictates of general 
benevolence, or to seek the glory of 
God and the good of the universe. And 
whenever the glory of God is neglected, 
it may be said, that God is imjured or 
deprived of his. right. Whenever the 
general good is neglected or impeded, 
the universe may be said to suffer an in- 
jury. For instance: if Paul were now 
to be cast down from heaven, to suffer 
the pains of hell, it would be wrong, as 
it would be inconsistent with God’s 
covenant faithfulness, with the designed 
exhibition of his glorious grace, and 
with the good of the universe. In this 
sense, it would not be just. Yet in the 
sense of distributive justice, such 4 
treatment of Paul would be perfectly 
just, as it would be no more than cor 
respondent to his personal demerits: 

The term grace, comes now to be 
explained. Grace is ever so opposed to 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 51 


justice, that they mutualiy limit each 

other. Wherever grace begins, justice 
ends; and wherever justice begins, 
erace ends. Grace as opposed to com- 
mutative justice is gratuitously to relin- 
quish your property or to forgive a man 
his debt. And commutative injustice 
is to demand more of a man, than your 
own property. Grace as opposed to 
lustice in the distributive sense, is to 
treat a man more favorably or mildly, 
than is correspondent to his personal 
character or conduct. To treat him un- 
justly is to use him with greater severi- 
ty, than is correspondent to his personal 
character. It isto be remembered, that 
in personal character I include punish- 
ment endured, as well as actions per- 
ormed. When a man has broken any 
law, and has afterwards suffered the pen- 
alty of that law ; as he has, by the trans- 
ression, treated the law with contempt, 
po by suffering the penalty, he has sup- 
ported the authority of it : and the latter 
makes a part of his personal character, 
s he stands related to that law, as really 
as the former. 


52 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


With regard to the third kind of j jus. 
tice, as this is improperly called justice, 
and as it comprehends all, moral good- 
ness, it is not-at all opposed to grace ; 
but comprehends that, as well as every 
other virtue, as truth, faithfulness, meck- 
ness, forgiveness, patience, prudence, 
temperance, fortitude, &c. All these 
are right and fit, and the contrary tem- 
pers or practices are wrong, and injuri- 
ous to God and the system: and there- 
fore in this sense of justice are unjust. 
And even grace itself, which i is favor to 
the ill-deserving, so far as it is wise and 
proper tobe exercised, makes but a 
part of this kind of justice. 

We proceed now to apply these ex- 
planations to the solution of the difficuity 
under consideration. The question is 
this, is the pardon of the sinner, throu gh 
the atonement of Christ, an act of justice 
or of grace ? To oihicls I answer, that 
with respect to commutative justice, it 
is neither an act of justice nor of grace, 
Because commutative Justice is not con- 
cerned in the affair.’ We neither owed 
money to the deity, nor did Christ pay 


3 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 53 


any on our behalf. His atonement is 
not a payment of our debt. If it had 
been, our discharge would have been 
an act of mere justice, and not of grace. 
To make the smner also pay the debt, 
which had been already paid by Christ, 
would be manifestly injurious, oppres- 
sive, and beyond the bounds of com- 


mutative justice, the rule of which is, 


that every man retain and recover his 
own property, and that only. But a 
debt being paid, by whomsoever it be 


paid, the crediter has recovered his 


property, and therefore has a right to 
nothing further. If he extort, or at- 
tempt to extort, any thing further, he 
proceeds beyond his right and is guilty 
of injustice. So that if Christ has paid 


- the debt for the believer, he would be 


discharged, not on the footing of grace, 
but of strict justice. 

With respect to distributive justice, - 
the discharge of the sinner is wholly an 
act of grace. his kind of justice had 
respect solely to the personal character 


_ and conduct of its object. And then 


is aman treated justly, when he is treated 
5 * 


54 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. - 


according to his personal moral character. 
If he be treated more favorably than is 
correspondent to his personal character, 
he is the object of grace. [say personal 
character ; for distributive justice’ has 
no respect to the character of a third © 
person, or to any thing which may be 
done or suffered by another person, than 
by him, whois the object of this justice, 
or who is on trial, to be rewarded or 
punished. _ And with regard:to the case 
now before us, whatuf Christ has made 
atonement for sin ? This atonement 
constitutes no part of the personal char- 
acter of the simmer: but his) personal 
character is essentially the same, as» it 
would have been, if Christ had made no - 
atonement. Andas the sinner, in pardon, 
is treated, not only more favorably, but — 
infinitely more favorably, than is corres- 
pondent to his personal character, his 

pardon is wholly an act of infinite grace. ° 
If it were, in the sense of distributive 
justice, an act of justice : he would be 
injured, if a pardon were refused him, 
But as the case is, he would not be 
injured, though a pardon were refused 


F M 
t - NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 


_ him ; because he would not be treated 
more unfavorably than is correspondent 
to his personal character. ‘ 
‘Therefore though it be true, that if a 
third person pay a debt, there would be 
no-grace exercised by the creditor, in 
discharging the debtor, yet when a third 
person atones for a crime, by suficring 
in the stead of a criniinal, there is entire 
grace in the discharge of the criminal, - 
and distributive justice still allows him 
tobe punished in his own person. The 
reason is, what I have mentioned already, 
that justice in punishing crimes, respects 
the personal character only of the crim- 
inal: but in the payment of debts, it 
respects the recovery of property ouly. 
In the former case, it admits ofany treat- 
| ment which is according to his personal 
| character’: in the latter, it admits of 
| nothing beyond the recovery of property. 
So that though Christ has made com- 
plete atonement for the sins of all his 
disciples, and they are justified wholly 
through his redemption ; yet they are 
justified whoily by grace, Because they 
personally have not made atonement for 


ers 


56 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


their sins, or suffered the curse of the 
law. Therefore they have no claim to 
a discharge on account of their own 
personal conduct and suffering. And 
if it is objected, that neither is a debtor 
discharged on account of any thing 
which he hath done personally, when 
he is discharged on the payment of his 
debt by a third person : yet justice does 
not admit, that the creditor recover the 
debt again from the debtor himself : 
why then does it admit, that a magistrate 
inflict the punishment of a crime on the 
criminal himself, when atonement has 
been made bf a substitute ? The answer 
is, that justice in these two cases is very 
different, and respects very different 
objects. In criminal causes, it respects. 
the personal conduct or character of the 
criminal, and admits of any treatment 
which is correspondent to that conduct. 
In civil causes, or matters of debt, it” 
respects the restitution of property only, 
and this being made, it admits of ay 
further demand. 

In the third sense of justice before 
explained, according ‘to which any thing” 


-@ 


; 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 57 


is just, whichis right and best to be 
done ; the pardon of the sinner is entire- 
ly an act of justice. It is undoubtedly 
most conducive to the divine glory, and 
general good of the created system, that 


every believer should be pardoned ; 


and therefore, in the present sense of the 
word, it is an act of justice, ‘The par- 


don of the sinner is equally an act of 
_ justice, if, as some suppose, he be 


pardoned not on account of the death of 
Christ, considered as an equivalent to 


the curse of the law denounced against 
the sinner; but merely on account of 


_ the positive obedience of Christ. If 


this be the mode and the condition of 


_ pardon established by God, doubtless 


pardon granted in this mode and on this 


/.condition, is most conducive to the 
| diviné glory and the general good, 
| Therefore it is, in the sense of justice 
- now under consideration, an act of jus- 
| tice ; insomuch that if pardon were not 


granted in this mode, the divine glory 
would be tarnished, and the general 


| good diminished, or the universe would 
suffer an injury. ‘fhe same would be 


58 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


true, if God had in fact granted pardon, 
without any atonement, whether by 
suffering or obedience. We might 
have argued from that fact, that infinite 
wisdorn saw it to be most conducive to 
the divine glory and the general good, 

to pardon without an atonement ; and 
of course that if pardon had not been 
granted in this way, both the divine 
slory and the general good, would have 
been diminished, and injustice would 
have been done to the universe. In the 
same sense the gift of Christ, to be our 
' Savior, his undertaking to save us, and 
every other gift of God to his: creatures, 
are acts of justice. But it must be 
remembered, that this is an improper 
sense of the word justice, and is not at 
all opposed to grace, but implies it. 

For all those divine acts and gifts just 
mentioned, though in this sense they 
are acts of justice, yet are at the same 
time, acts of pure grace. 

In this sense of justice, the word 
seems to be used by the apostle Paul, 
Rom. i. 26. ‘* To declare his right- 
cousness, (or justice, ) that he might be 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 59 


just and the justifier of him who be- 
heveth in Jesus.””, That God might be 
just to himself and to the universe. 
Again in Psalm Ixxxv. 10... ‘* Mercy 
and truth are met together, righteous- 
ness and peace, have Kissed cach other.” 
Righteousness, in the distributive sense, 
hath not kissed peace with respect to the 
sinner ; but so far as it speaks any thing, 
calls for his punishment. But the pub- 
lic good, and_ the divine glory admit of 
peace with the sinner. In the same 
sense the word occurs in the version of 
the Psalms in common use among us, 
_ where it is said ‘‘ justice is pleased and 
peace is given.’ Again in the. cate- 
chism of the assembly of divines, where 
they say, ‘‘ Christ offered up himself a 
sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.’” 
| Thus it appears, that the pardon of 
| the sinner, in reference to distributive 


= 


i 
| justice, which is the only proper sense 
of the word, with respect to this matter, 
, is entirely an act of grace, and that 
although he is pardoned wholly through 
| the redemption of Jesus Christ. 

| ‘Tt is in the same sense an act of grace, 


i 


60 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


as the gift of Christ, or any other most 
eracious act of God. Though | the 
sinner is pardoned wholly through the 
redemption of Christ, yet his pardon is 
an act of pure grace, because in it he is 
treated inconceivably more favorably 
than is correspondent to his Epona 
character. 

The pardon of the sinner, on this 
plan of the redemption or the atonement 
of Christ, is as entirely an act of grace, 
as if rt had been granted on, an atone- 
ment made, not by the sufferings of 
Christ, but merely by his active obedi- 
ehce. For if we suppose, that the 
atonement of Christ consists wholly in 
the obedience of .Christ, not in his 
sufferings, ‘in what sense would the 
pardon of the sinner be an act of grace, 
in which it is not.an act of grace, on the’ 
hypothesis concerning ~ the atonement 
which hath been now stated ? Pardon is’ 
no more procures by the payment of 
the sinner’s debt, in the one case, thar’ 
in the other. If it be said that Christ’s 

_ suffering the curse of the lawis the pay- 
ment of the debt ; I answer, this is no 


NECESSITY -OF ATONEMENT. 6% 


“more a payment of the debt, than the 
| obedience of Christ. If it be said,that 
| Christ’s obedience only honors and 
| magnifies the law ; I answer, no more is 
| done by the sufferings of Christ. It is 
| true, that if the sinner be pardoned on 
}account of Christ’s obedience, he is 
| treated more favorably than is corres-_ 
| pondent to his personal character. The 
same is true, if he be pardoned on 
account of Christ’s sufferings. If it be 
| said, that in the one case, Christ suffers, 
-as the substitue of the sinner; I answer, 
in the other case, he obeys as the substi- 
'tute of the sinner. In the one case, 
Christ has by his sufferings made it 
consistent with the general good, to 
pardon the sinner ; in the other case, 
he hath made the same thing consistent 
with the general good, by his obedience. 
And if this circumstance, that the par- 
‘don of the sinner is consistent with the 
general good, abolishes grace from his 
pardon in the one case, the same circum- 
stance is productive of the same effect, 
in the other. ‘The truth is, that in both 
cases, the whole grace of pardon consists 


62 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 
in this, and this only, that the sinner is 
treated infinitely more favorably, than is_ 
correspondent to his personal character. © 

Again; according ‘to this scheme of 
the atonement, the pardon of the sinner, 
is as wholly an act of grace, as if he had - 
been pardoned without any atonement 
at all. Ifthe sinner had been pardoned 
without any atonement, he would have- 
been treated, more fav orably than is. 
correspondent to his own character : 
so he is, when pardoned through the 
atonement of Christ. Ia the former 

case, he would be pardoned, without a- 
payment of his debt: so he is in the 
latter. If the measures taken by God, 
to secure the public good, those meas- 
ures consisting neither m any personal 
doing or suffering of the smner, nor in - 
the payment of debt, be inconsistent 
with grace in the pardon of the sinner, 
im the one case; doubtless whatever 
measures are taken by God, to secure 
the. public good in the other case, are 
equally imconsistent with grace in par- 
don. And no man will pretend, that if 
God do pardon the smner without am 


MECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 63 


_atonemenit, he will pardon him in away 
which is inconsistent with the public 
good. Jn this view of the objection, 
either the bare circumstance that the 
pardon of the sinner is consistent with 
the public good, is that which abolishes 
the grace of pardon ; or it is the partic- 
ular mode, in which the consistence of 
/ pardon and the public good, is brought 
about. Ifthe bare circumstance of the 
consistence of pardon and the public 
: good, be that which abolishes the grace 
_of pardon ; then it seems, that in order 
| that any pardon may be gracious, it 
must be inconsistent with the public 
_ good; and therefore the pardon of the 
| sinner without any atonement, being by 
_ the concession of the objector, a gracious 
act, is inconsistent with the general good 
of the universe, and with the glory and 
 perfections of God, and therefore can 
_ never be granted by God, as long as 
he is possessed of infinite perfection 
and goodness, whereby he is necessarily 
_ disposed. to seek the good of the univer- 
sal system, or of his own kingdom. 

Or if it be said, that it is the particu- 


64 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


lar mode, in which the consistenc 
between pardon and the public good i 
brought about, which abolishes th 
grace of pardon; in this case it is in 
cumbent on the objector, to point ou 
what there is in the mode, which i 
opposed to grace in pardon. He canno 
pretend, that in this mode, the debt o 
the sinner is paid, or that in repentance 
the sinner’s personal character is  s¢ 
altered, that he now deserves no punish. 
ment. If this were the case, there 
would certainly be no grace in his par. 
don. It is no grace, and no pardon 
not to punish a man who deserves n¢ 
punishment. If the objector were tc 
hold, that the personal character of the 
sinner is so altered by repentance, tha 
he no longer deserves punishment, h« 
would at.once confute his‘own schem« 
of gracious pardon. 

Neither can it be pretended, by the 
advocates for pardon without atonement, 
that there is any grace in pardon, in any 
other view than this, that the sinner is 
treated more favorably, than is corres- 
pondent to his personal character, And 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 69 


We would not have been more grace 
nanifested towards the sinner, if his 
tardon had not been granted, without 
jay atonement: I answer, by no means; 
iecause to put the question in this sense, 
s; the same as to ask, whether the favor 
‘Feria granted without an atonement, 
ould not be greater in comparison 
ith the sinner’s personal character, 
n itis when when granted on account 
f the atonement of Christ. Or whether 
here would not have been a greater 
-istance between tlie good of pardon, 
jad the demerit of the sinner’s personal 
jaaracter, if his pardon had been granted 
vithout an atonement, than if it be 
nted on account of the atonement of 
jhrist. But the good, the safety, the 
demnity of pardon, or of deliverance 
m condemnation, is the very same, 
whatever way it be granted, whether 
trough an atonement or not, whether 
a way of grace or in a way of debt, 
hether from a regard to the merits of 
‘hrist, or the merits of the sinner him- 
if. Again, the personal character of 
ye sinner is also the same, whether he 


- 


70 NECESSITY OF “ATONEMENT. | 


be pardoned through an atonement o 
not. If his pardon be granted without 
an atonement, it makes not the demerit 
of his personal’ character and conduct 
the greater: or if it be granted on ac- 
count of the atonement of Christ, it 
makes not the demerit of his personal” 
character the less. Therefore as the 
good of pardon is the same, in whatever 
way it be granted ; and the personal 
character of the sinner pardoned is the 
same ; the distance between the good 
of pardon, and the demerit of the sinner’s_ 
character is also the same, whether he 
be pardoned on account of the atone-) 
ment of Christ, or absolutely, without 
any atonement. Of course the pardon 
of the sinner is not an act of greater 
grace to him personally, if granted 
without regard to any atonement, than 
if granted from regard to the atonement 
of Christ. 

But perhaps the meaning of the ques- 
tion stated above, is, Whether, if the 
sinner had been pardoned, without an 
atonement, it would not have exhibited | 
greater grace, in the divine mind, or 


: 


~ 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 


greater goodness in God ; and whether, 
in this mode of pardon, greater good 
would not have accrued to the universe. 
The answer to this question wholly 
depends on the necessity of an atone- 
ment, which I have endeavored bricfly 
to show, in the preceding discourse. 
If an atonement be necessary to support 
the authority of the law and of the moral 
government of God, it is doubtless 
necessary to the public good of the 
moral system, or to the general good of 
the universe and to the divine glory. 
This being granted or established, the 
question just now stated, comes to this 
simply, whether it exhibits greater 
grace and goodness in the divinexmind, 
and secures greater good to the \uni- 
verse, to pardon sin in such a mode;.as 
is consistent with the general good of 
the universe ; or in sucha mode as is 
consistent with that important object : 
question which no man, from regard 
o his own reputation, would choose to 
ropose. 


72 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


DISCOURSE Ill. 
HAVING, in the- preceding dis- 


courses, considered the particulars at 
first proposed, which were, that we can 
obtain forgiveness, in no other way, 
than through the redemption of Christ ; 
the reason or ground of this mode of 
forgiveness; and thé consistency be- 
tween the complete atonement of Christ j 
and free grace in forgiveness ; ‘the wa 
_is prepared for the following mferences 
and reflections. 

If the atonement of Christ be a sub 
stitute for the punishment of the sinne 
according to the divine law, and wer 
designed to support the authority of tha 
law, equally as the punishment of hell 
then we may infer, that the atoneme 
of Christ does not consist in shewing, 
that the divine law is just. With re 
gard to this, I venture to assert tw 
things ; that the obedience and death 
Christ do not prove, that the divine la 
is just ; that if they did prove this, still 
~ merely by that circumstance they woul 
make no atonement. 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 73 


1. The obedience and death of 
Christ do not prove, that the divine law ~ 
isa just law. The sufferings of Christ 
no more prove this, than the punishment 
of the damned proves it. The former 
are the substitute of the latter, and were 
designed for substance to prove and 
exhibit the same truths, and to answer 
the same ends. But who will say that 
the torments of the damned prove the 
justice of the divine law ? No more is 
this proved by the sufferings of Christ. 
If the justice of the divine law be called 
in question, the justice and moral per- 
fection of God is of course equally 
called in question. This being the 
case, whatever he can say, whether by 
obedience or suffering, to testify the 


justice of the law, must be considered 


as the testimony of a party in his own 
cause ; and also as the testimony of a 
Being whose integrity is as much dis- 
puted, »as the justice of the law. It 
cannot therefore be received as proof in 


‘the case. The testimony of God, 


whether given in obedience or suffering, 
so long as his character is disputed, as 
riyhiee 


74 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


it will be, so long as the justice of his 
law is disputed; proves neither that the 
law is just, in reality, nor that it is so 
in his own estimation. A being of a 
disputed character may be supposed to 
testify, both contrary to reality, and. 
contrary to his own knowledge. And 
as the character of the deity is disputed, 
by those who dispute the justice of the 
divine law ; so there is the same founda- 
tion to dispute the character and testi- 
mony of the Son of God. Therefore 
the obedience and death of Christ do not 
prove, that the divine law is just. 

2. If the obedience and death of 
Christ did prove that the law is just ; 
stili by this ‘circumstance, they would 
make no atonement for sin. If it were 
a truth, that the obedience and death of » 
Christ did prove the divine law to be 
just, and merely on that account made 
atonement, the ground of this truth 
would be, that whatever makes it mani- 
fest that the law is just, makes atone- 
ment. The essence of the atonement, 
on this hypothesis, is placed in the — 
manifestation of the justice of the divine — 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 75 


law. Therefore this manifestation, 
however, or by whomsoever it be made, 
is an atonement. But as the law ‘is 
really just, it was doubtless in the power 
of infinite wisdom to manifest the justice 
of it, to rational creatures, without either 
the obedience or the death of Christ, or 
of any other person. If it were not in 
the power of infinite wisdom to manifest 
the justice of the divine law, without 
the death of Christ; then if Christ had 
not died, but all men had perished ac- 
cording to the law, it never would have 
appeared that the law is just. But bare 
attention to the law itself, to the reason, 
sround, and necessity of it, especially 
when this attention is excited, and the 
powers of the mind are aided, by even 
such a divine influence, as God does in 
fact sometimes give to men of the most ° 
depraved characters ; is sufficient to 
convince of the justice of the law. But 
there can be no dispute, whether the 
sanctifying and savingly illuminating 
influences of the spirit of God, without 
the obedience and death of Christ, 
would convince any man of the justice 


76 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


of the law. We have no more reason 
to dispute this, than to dispute, whether © 
the angels who kept their first estate, 
did believe the justice of the law, before 
they were informed of the incarnation 
and death of Christ. According to this 
hypothesis, therefore, all that was neces- 
sary to make atonement for mankind, 
was to communicate to them satisfying 
grace, or to lead them to repentance: 
and as to Christ, he is dead in vain. 
Besides; if the obedience and death 
of Christ did ever so credibly manifest 
the justice of the law, what atonement, 
what satisfaction for sin, would this 
make 2? How would this support the 
authority of the law? How would this 
make it to appear, that the transgressor 
may expect the most awful consequences 
from his transgression? or that trans- 
gression is infinitely abominable in the 
sight of God? And how would the 
manifestation of the justice of the law, 
tend to restrain men from transgressing 
that law ? Whatever the effect of such 
manifestation may be on the minds of 
those innocent creatures, who have re- 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ve 


gard tu justice or moral rectitude ; yet 
_ on the minds of those who are disposed 
to transgress, and have lost the proper 
sense of moral rectitude, the manifesta- 
tion would have no effectual tendency 
to restrain them from transgression : 
therefore would in no degree answer the - 
ends of the punishment threatened in 
the law, nor be any atonement for sin. 
Perhaps some may -suppose, that 
what hath now been asserted, that the 
death or atonement of Christ does not 
prove the justice of God and of his law, 
is inconsistent with what hath been 
repeatedly suggested in the preceding 
discourses, that it is an end of the death 
or atonement of Christ, to manifest how 
hateful sin is to God... If the death of 
Christ manifests God’s hatred of sin, 
it seems, that the same event must also 
manifest’ God’s love of holiness and 
justice. In-answer to this, I observe ; 
that the death uf Christ manifests God’s 
hatred of sin and love of holiness, in the 
same sense as the dammation of the 
’ wicked manifests these, viz. on the snp- 
position aor the divine law is just and 


78 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


holy. If it be allowed the divine law 
is just and holy, then every thing done 
. to support and execute that law, ais a 
declaration in favor of holiness and 
against sin; or a declaration of God’s 

love of holiness and of his hatred of 
iniquity. Both the punishment of the 
damned, and the death of Christ declare 
God’s hatred of all transgressions of his 
law. And if that law be holy, to hate 
the. transgressions of it, is to hate sin, 
and at the same time to love holiness. 

But if the law be not holy, no such: 
consequence will follow: it cannot, on 

that supposition, be inferred from the 

divine hatred of transgression, that God 

either hates sin or loves holiness. 

Again; we may infer from the pre-— 
ceding doctrine, that the atonement of 
Christ does not consist essentially in his 
active of positive obedience. By atone- 
ment I mean that which, as a substitute 
for the punishment whee is threatened 
in the law, supports the authority of that 
law, and the dignity of the divine goy- 
ernment. But “the ‘obedience of Christ, 
even in the most #3 ys circumstances, 


ae 


9 
NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 


without any tokens of the divine dis- 
pleasure against the transgressors of the 
law, would never support the authority 
of the iaw, and the dignity of the divine 
government. It by no means makes it 
appear, that it is an evil and bitter thing 
to violate the law, and that the violation 
of it deserves, and may be expected to 
be followed with most awful consequen- 
ces to him, who dares to violate it. A 
familiar example may illustrate this 
matter. It is the rule or law of a certain 
family, that a particular child shall stead- 
ily attend the school kept in the neigh- 
borhood, and that if he absent himself 
for a day, without license, he shall feel 
‘the rod. However, after some time, 
the child being weary of observing this 
law, does absent himself, and spend the 
day in play. At night the father being 
informed of it, arraigns the child, finds 
him guilty, and prepares to inflict the 
punishment, which he had threatened. 

Ait this instant, the brother of the offend- 
ing child intercedes, acknowledges the 
lreasonableness of the law, which his 
)brother had transgressed, confesses that 


f 


80 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


he deserves the penalty, but offers him- 
self to make satisfaction for his brother’s. 
offense. Being interrogated by what 
means he expects to make satisfaction ; 
he answers, by going himself to school 
the next day. Now can any one sup-. 
pose, that in this way the second child 
can make satisfaction for the offense of 
the first ? Or that if the father were to. 
accept the proposal, he would find the 
authority of his law, and the government 
of his family supported with dignity ? 
Or that the offending child, or the other 
children of the family, would by this 
mean be effectually deterred from future 
offenses of the like nature? And how- 
ever trying the circumstances of going 
to school may be, if those circumstances 
be no ,token of the father’s displeasure 
at the disobedient child’s transgression ;. 
still the going to school of the second 
child, will not make the least satisfaction 
for the offense of the first. ~ 
I venture to say further, That not 
only did not the atonement of Christ 
cousist essentially in his active obedi- 
ence, but that his active obedience was, 
e 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 81 


) part of his atonement properly so 
lcd, nor essential to it. The perfect 
yedience of Christ was doubtless nec- 
sary in order to the due execution of 
s prophetical and priestly office ; in 
der to his intercession: and also in 
der that the salvation of his disciples 
ight be a reward of his obedience. 
ut that it Was necessary to support the 
thority of the divine law in the pardon 
sinners, does not appear. If Christ 
mself could possibly have been a sin- 
r, and had first made satisfaction for 
S own sin; it does not appear, but 
at afterwards he might also satisfy for 
e sins of his people. If the pretender 
the crown of Great Britain, should 
ge war against king George, in the 
rse of the war should be taken, 
uld be brought to trial, and be con- 
ned to the block ; will any man say 
the king of France, by becoming 
> substitute of the pretender, and, 
ring in his stead, could not make 
inement for the pretender, so as effec- 
ly to support the authority of the 
ish laws and government, and dis- 


@ 


$2 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


courage all future groundless pretensio 
to the British crown? Yet the king 
France could plead no perfect obedien 
to the British laws. Even the sinn 
himself, but upon the supposition of 
infinite evil of sin, could by his ov 
sufferings, atone for his sins. Yet 
could not exhibit a perfect obedience. 
Besides; if the bare obedience 
Christ have made atonement, why cou 
not the repentance and perfect obedien 
of Christ’s people themselves, ha 
answered, instead of the obedience 
Christ ? Doubtless if they had suffer 
the penalty of the divine law, it wou 
have answered to support the authori 
of the law, and the vigor of the divi 
government, as really as the death 
Christ. And since the eternal sufferi 
of the people of Christ, would: h 
answered the same end of supporti 
the authority of the law, as the sufferin 
_of Christ; why would not the ete 
perfect repentance and obedience of { 
people of Christ, have answered 
same end, as his obedience in th 
behalf ? If it would, both the death a 
‘ 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 83 


yedience of Christ as our substitute, 
e entirely in vain. If the elect had 
ly been converted, and made per- 
ctly and perseveringly obedient, it 
ould have answered every purpose 
th of the death and obedience of 
hrist. Or if the obedience of Christ 
the flesh were at all necessary, it was 
Yt necessary to support the authority 
‘the law and government of God ; but 
erely as it was most wise, that he 
ould obey. It was necessary in the 
me sense only, as that the wind 
ould, at this moment, blow from the 
yrth-east, and not from the south-west, 
‘from any other quarter. 

If the mere active obedience of Christ 
ive made atonement for sin, it may be 
ficult to account for the punishment 
‘any sinners. If obediciuce without 
iy demonstration of divine displeasure 
sin, will answer every purpose of the 
vine authority and government, in 
me instances, why not in all instances ? 
nd if the obedience of sinners them- 
Ives will answer as really as that of 
hrist, why might not all men have 


' 


| 


84 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


been led by divine grace to repentanct 
and perfect subsequent obedience, an 
in that way been saved from the curs 
of the law? Doubtless they might : ne 
was there originally, nor is there noy 
without any consideration of the atone 
ment of Christ, any other necessity ¢ 
the punishment of any of mankin 
according to the law, than that whic 
results from mere sovereign wisdom 
in which sense indeed it was necessar 
that Christ should be given to be th 
Savior of sinners, that Paul should 
saved, and that every other event shou 
take place, just as it does take place. _ 

From our doctrine we also learn th 
great gain which acerues to the univers 
by the death of Christ. It hath bee 
objected to the idea of atonement nd 
exhibited, that if the death of Christ 
an equivalent to the curse of the la 
which was to have been inflicted on 
his people ; then there is‘n the wh 
no gain, no advantage to the univers¢ 
that all that punishment from whi 
christians are saved, hath been suffe 
by Christ, and therefore that there is j 


r 


| 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 85 


as much misery and no more happiness, 
than there would have been, had Christ 
not died. ‘To this I answer, - 
1. That it is not “true, that Christ 
endured an equal quantity of misery, to 
that which would have been endured 
by all his people, had they suffered the 
curse of the law. This was not neces- 
sary on account of the infinite dignity of 
his person. Ifa king were to condemn 
his son to lose an ear or a hand, it would 
doubtless be esteemed by all hissubjects, 
a proof of far greater dispieasure in the 
king, than if he should order some mean 
criminal to the gallows: and it would 


tend more effectually to support the 


authority of the law, for the violation of 
which, this punishment should be in- 
flicted on the prince. - 
2. That if it were true, that Christ 
_endured the verv same quantity of mis- 
ery, which was due to all his people; 
still by his death an infinite gai accrues 


| tothe universe. For though the misery, 


on this supposition, is in both cases the 
‘same, and balances itself ; yet the posi- 
‘tive happiness obtained by the death of 


86 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


Christ, infinitely exceeds that which 
was lost by Christ. As. the eternal 
Logos was capable of neither enduring 
misery, nor. losing happiness, all the | 
happiness lost by the substitution of 
Christ, was barely that of the man Christ. 
Jesus, during only thirty-three years ; 
or rather during the three last years of 
his life: because it does not appear, 
. but that during the rest of his life he 
was ‘as happy, as men in general, and 
enjoyed as much or more good, than he 
suffered evil. But the happiness gained 
by the substitution of Christ, is that of 
a great multitude, which no man can 
number, of all nations, kindreds, and 
people and tongues; Rev. vii. 9. Now 
if the happiness of one man for three 
years, or at most for thirty-three years, 
be equal to that of an innumerable mul- 
titude throughout eternity, with the 
_addition of the greater happiness, which 
Christ himself must enjoy now that he » 
has brought so many sons to glory, 
beyond what he would have enjoyed, if 
all these had been plunged in ineonceiv- 
able and endless misery : then it may 


” NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 87 


be justly said, on the present hy pothesis, 
that by the substitution of Christ, no 
advantage is gained to the universe. 
But if the latter infinitely exceed the 
former, the gain to the universe, even 
on the supposition, that the sufferings 
of Christ were equal to those, to which 
all his people were exposed, is infinite., 
I may also hence take occasion to 
oppose an opinion which appears to me 
erroneous ; which is, That the perfect 
obedience of Christ was in a great meas- 
ure designed, to show us, that the divine 
law may be obeyed by men. It shows 
indeed, that it may be obeyed by a man 
in personal union with the divine nature. 


- But how does this show, that it may be 


obeyed by a mere man ¢ ? If we should 


-also allow, that it shows, that a man born 


into the world in perfect innocence, and 
who is not a fallen creature, may obey 
the law : yet how does this prove, that 
it may be obeyed by a fallen creature, 
dead in trespasses’and sins? It is an ‘ 


undoubted truth, that there is no inabil- 


ity in men to obey the law, except that 


_ which is of a moral nature, consisting 


88 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. — 


in the disinclination or disaffection of 
their own hearts; which does not in the 
least excuse them in their disobedience. 
But this is manifest by other consider- 
ations, than the perfect obedience of 
Christ ; if it were not, it would not be 
manifest at all. 

Another remark which naturally of- 
fers itself in discoursing on this subject 
is, that Christ’s obedience of the pre- 
cepts of the law, without submitting to 
the curse, W ould by no means prove the 
justice of that curse. This is the idea of 
some : that God sent his Son into the 
world, to obey the precepts of the law, 
and that his mere obedience of these, 
proves the justice both of the precepts 
and of the penalty of the law. I have 
already given the reasons by which Iam 
made to believe, that the obedience of 
Christ does not prove the precepts of 
the law to be just. But if it did prove | 
the precepts to be just, it would not. 
therefore prove the penalty too to be 
just. As the precept of any law may be 
just and reasonable, yet may be enforced 
by a penalty which is unjust and cruel ; 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 89 


so the proof that the precept is just, does 


_ hotat all prove, but that the penalty may 


be unjust and cruel. Indeed as the pen- 
alty of any law is “designed to support 
and enforce the precept of that law, so 
to prove the justice ofthe penalty, proves 
the justice of the precept : because not 
the slightest penalty can be just, when 
applied to enforce an unjust precept. 
But this rule when inverted, doth not 
hold good. To prove the justice of a 
precept does by no means prove the jus- 
tice of the penalty by which that pre- 
cept js enforced. So that if Christ have 
proved the precepts of the divine law to 


~ be just, this by no means infers the jus- 


: 


tice of its penalty. On the other hand: 
if Christ came to prove the justice of the 
law, and all that he has done to this ef- 
fect, have an immediate reference to the 
precepts only ; and if he have done noth- 
img to establish the justice of the penal 
part, considered by itself; the aspect of 
the whole will be, that the penal part is 


- unjustifiable, and that for this reason he 
did not pretend to justify it. 


The subject which hath been under 
ax 


90 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


our consideration, also shews us, in what 
sense the sufferings of Christ were agree- 
able to God. It has been said, that it is 
incredible, that mere pain should be 
agreeable toa God of infinite goodness ; 
that therefore ' the sufferings of Christ 
were agreeable to God only as a_ proof 
of the strength of the virtue of Christ, 
or of his disposition to obey the divine 
law. If by mere pain be- meant pain 
abstracted from the obedience of Christ, 

I cannot see why it may not be agreea- 
ble to God. It certainly is, in the 
damned : and for the same reason might 
‘ have been, and doubtless was, in the 
case of our Lord. The Father was 
pleased with the pains of his Son, as 
they were necessary to support the au- 
thority of his law and government, ‘in 
the salvation of sinners. 

Another reflection naturally suggested 
by this subject is, that im punishing 
some sinners according to the curse of. 
the law, and in requiring an adequate 
atonement, in order to the salvation of 
others ; God acts, not from any con- 
tracted, selfish motives, but from the 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 91 


most noble benevolence and regard to 
the public good. It hath often and 


long since been made a matter of ob- 


jection to the doctrines of the future 
punishment of the wicked, and of the 
atonement of Christ; that they repre- 
sent the deity as having regard merely 
to his own honor and dignity, and not 


-to the good of his creatures, and there- 


fore represent him as deficient in good- 
ness. But can it be pretended to be a 


_ proof of goodness in God, to suffer his 


own law, which is the perfect rule of 
virtue, to fall into contempt ? However 
it might afford relief to some individuals, 
if God were to suffer his moral kingdom 
to be dissolved ; can it be for the general 
good of the system of hiscreatures ? Is 
it not manifestly necessary to the general 
good of the created system, that God’s 
moral kingdom be upholden ? and that 
therefore the authority of the civine law, 


_and vigor of the divine government be 


maintained ? If so, then it is also neces- 


‘sary to the general good, that punish- 


menis be wmiflicted on the disobedient 


and lawless; or that they be pardoned 


‘ 


92 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


in consequence only of a proper satis- | 
faction, or atonement. 

So that those. very doctrines Sich 
of all others are made matter of the most 
objection to the divine goodness or 
benevolence, are clear proofs of good- 
ness, and are absolutely necessary to it. 
If a prince should either make no laws 
for the government of his subjects, or 
should never execute them : but should 
suffer all crimes to pass with imipunity : 
you would by no means esteem him a 
good prince, aiming at the good-of his 
subjects : you would not hesitate ‘to. 
pronounce him either very weak or very 
wicked. 

In reflecting on this subject, we may. 
notice the reason, why so-many, who 
profess to be advocates for the doctrine 
of atonement, yet place the atonement 
in that, in which it does by no means 
consist. ‘The principal reason seems to, 
be, that they have conceived, that the 
idea of Christ’s having suffered an 
equivalent to the punishment, to which 
all his peopie were exposed, is .incon- 
sistent with grace intheir pardon. But 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 98 


f I have been so happy as properly to 
state the ideas of justice and grace, it 
ippears that there is as much grace in 
he pardon of sinners on account of such 
in atonement as that just mentioned, as 
here would be on account of an atone- 
nent consisting in mere obedience ; or 
as there would be in pardon without any 
itonement at all. 

“Hence also we see, that the death of 
Christ in our stead, is not useless or in 
rain. ‘The opposers of Christ's substi- 
ution and atonement, assert, that no 
rood end is answered by the sufferings 
yf an innocent, amiable and virtuous 
yerson, in the stead of the guilty. But 
surely to support the authority of the 
aw and of the moral government of God, 
Ss not a vain or unimportant end. It 
was not in vain that Zaleucus, having 
made a law, that all adulterers should 
nave both their eyes put out, and his 
9wn son being the first who transgressed, 
put out one of his own eyes and one of 
his son’s. Hereby he spared his son in 
part, and yet as effectually supported the 
authority of his law, as if it had been 


94 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


literally executed. Nor was it in vair 
that during the late war, a soldier in th 
American army of a robust constitutior 
pitying his fellow soldier of a slend 
' constitution, who was condemned to r 
ceive a certain number of stripes, pet 
tioned to be put in the place of t 
criminal, and actually received t 
stripes.* For the authority of the ma 
tial law was effectually supported, an 
perhaps by this mean, the life or futu 
health and service of the criminal we 
preserved, and would. otherwise hav 
_been lost. 

Neither was the death of Christ in th 
stead of sinners, any injury done to a 
innocent person. As well may we say 
that Zaleucus, or the soldier just men 
tioned, were injured : or that a mani 
injured, when another man _ receive 
the money of him, which he voluntaril 
tenders in payment of the debt of 
third person: or that a man is injure 
by the surgeon, who takes off his leg t 
preserve his life, the man himself con 
senting, and desiring him so to do. 


* This I am informed was a real fact. 


j NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 93 


_ Again ; we may observe in what sense . 
justice and the divine law are satisfied 

by the death of Christ ; and in what 

sense the atonement of Christ is properly 

called a satisfaction. It is only the third 

kind of justice before mentioned, that 

is satisfied by Christ. No man for the 
reasons alreaay given, will pretend that 
Pommutative justice issatishied by Christ; 

for the controversy between God and the 
sinner is not concerning property. Nor 
is distributive justice satisfied. If it 
were, there would indeed be no more 

ace in the discharge of the sinner, 

Bir there is in the discharge of a crim- 
nal, when he hath endured the full pun- 
shment, to which according to law, he 
nath been condemned. If distributive 
lustice were satisfied, it would have no 
lurther claim on the sinner. And to 
punish him, when this kind of justice 
jas no claim on him, is to treat him more 
infavorably or severely than his personal 
tharacter deserves. If so, the penitent 
yeliever, considered in his own person, 
eserves even according to the strictness 
Mf the divine law, no punishment ; and 


- a Mabe 
96 ‘NECESSITY OF ATONEME NT. _ q 


and that merely because he repents and 
believes : and if so, repentance and 
faith satisfy the law, or are the curse Vf 
it, as I have already shown. If distri- 
butive justice be satisfied, it admits. of 
no further punishment, and to punish 
him further, would be as positively un- 
just, as to continue a man’s punishment, 
after he hath endured the full penalty of 
any law. If distributive justice be sat- 
isfied by Christ, in the behalf of sinners, 
then the rule of distributive justice is 
not the personal character of a man, but 
the character of his friend, his advocate, 
or representative ; any man has a right, 
on the footing of distributive justice, to 
be treated according to the character q 
his friend or representative. Therefore 
if a subject rebel against his sovereign, 
and procure a man of a, most unexcep- 
tionable and amiable character, to repre= 
sent him and plead his cause before his 
sovereign, he has a right on the footin 
of distributive justice, to be treated ace 
cording to the character of his represen- 
tative ; and if he be not thus treated, h 
suffers an injury ; he isabused. On 


~ \ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 97 : 


this principle, no prince or magistrate 
will have a right to punish, for any crime, 
a subject who can procure a man of a 
virtuous life, torepresent him and plead 
his cause. 

But perhaps it will be said, that dis- 
tributive justice is satisfied by ‘the death 
of Christ, because he’ placed himself in 
our stead, and suffered in our foom ; and 
that whenever a person thus substitutes 
himself for another, and suffers the pun- 
ishment due to that other, that other hath 
a right to a discharge, as distributive 
justice is then satisfied. Now accord- 
ing to this objection, the true idea of 
distributive justice is, to treat a man 
either according to his own sufferings, 
or according to the sufferings of his. 
representative. And if according to 
the sufferings of his representative, why 
not according to the obedience of his 
representative. And this brings us just 
where we were; that every man may 
in justice demand, to be treated accord- 
ing to the character of his ReRLESGRIAR YE : 
which is-absurd. 

Distributive justice therefore is not 


98 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


at all satisfied by the death of Christ. 
But general justice to the deity and to the 
universe is satisfied. That is done by 
the death of Christ which supports the 
authority of the law, and renders it con- 
sistent with the glory of God and the 
good of the whole system, to pardon the 
sinner, 

In the same sense the law of God is 
satisfied by the death of Christ : I mean 
as the divine glory and the general good, 
which are the great ends of the law, are 
secured. In this sense only is the 
atonement of Christ, properly called a 

satisfaction ; God is satisfied, as by it 
his glory and the good of his system 
are secured and promoted. 

Objection. But is not distributive 
justice displayed in the death of Christ ? 
‘Answer. The question is ambiguous : 
If the meaning be, is not distributive 
justice satisfied ? I answer, for the rea- 
sons already given, in the negative. If 
the meaning be, is there not an exhibi- 
tion made in the death and sufferings of 
Christ, of the punishment to which the 
sinner is justly liable ? T answer in the 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 99 


affirmative ; distributive justice is, in this 
sense, displayed i in the death of Christ. 
But it is no more displayed, than the 
punishment of the sinner is displayed, 
in the death of Christ. 

Tt may be proper here to notice the 
sense, in which justice admits of the sal- . 
vation of sinners. It hath been said, 
that justice admits of several things 
which it does not demand : that it admits 
of the salvation of Paul, but does not 
demand it.. And it would admitalso of 
the damnation of Paul, but does not 
demand that. But in these instances 
the word justice is used in two very 
different senses, which ought to be care- 
fully distinguished. When it is said, 
justice admits of the saivation of Paul, 
the third kind of j justice before described, 
must be intended. The general good 
admits it: neither the glory of God nor 
the good of the system, opposes it. 

But distributive justice, which re- 
quires every man to be treated accord- 
ing to his personal character, does not 
admit that Paul should be saved: so 
far as this kind of justice says any thing 


100 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ‘ 


concerning this matter, it demands that 
Paul be punished according to law : 
and if this justice be made the rule of 
proceeding in the case, Paul will inevita- 
bly be cast off. ‘This kind of justice no 
more admits of the salvation of Paul 
than it admits of the salvation of Judas. 
But it is said, that ‘‘ justice admits of 
the salvation of Paul, but does not de-. 
mand it.”” Justice to the universé does 
demand it, as fully as admit of it, and 
the universe would suffer an. injury, if - 
he were not to be saved : but justice to 
the universe, neither demands nor ad- 
mits of the salvation of Judas. Whereas 
distributive justice to Paui personally, 
as much demands that he be not saved, 
as that Judas be not saved. 

But if we will make a distinction be- 
tween what justice admits and what: it 
demands, the true and only distinction 
seems to be this : justice admits of any 
thing which is not positively unjust ; of 
any favor however great or manifold : 
but it demands nothing, but barely what 
is just, without the least favor, and 
which being refused, positive injustice 


. 


' 
NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 101 


would be done. Distributive justice 
then admits of the salvation of Judas or 
of any other sinner ; as surely no injus- 
tice would be done Judas in his salva- 
tion ; but it demands not this, as it is a 
mere favor, or something beyond the 
bounds of mere justice ; or it is no in- 
jury to Judas, that he is not saved. 
Neither does distributive justice demand 
the salvation of Paul. But public jus- 
tice both admits and demands both the: 
salvation of Paul and the damnation of 
Judas. On the other hand, it neither 
admits hor demands the damnation of 
Paul, nor the salvation of Judas. But 
distributive justice, according to the 
present distinction between the meaning 
of the words admit, and demand, though 
it admits both of the salvation and dam- 
nation of both Paul and Judas ; yet de- 
mands neither the salvation nor damna- 
tion, of the one or the other : or, to ex- 
press the same thing in other words; no 
injustice would be done either to Paul 
or Judas personally, if they were both 
saved or both damned. © Distributive 
justice never demands the punishment 
Ox 


102° +“NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


of any criminal, in any instance ; be- 
cause no injury would be done him, if 
he were graciously pardoned. It de- 
mands only that a man be not punished — 
being innocent : or be not punished be- 
yond his demerit ; and that he be re- 
_ warded according to his positive merit. 

_ ‘These observations may help us to 
understand a distinction, which to many 
hath appeared groundless or perplexing : 
I mean the distinction of the merit of 
condignity and merit of congruity. 
Merit of both these kinds refers to re- 
wards only, and has no reference to 
punishments : and that is deserved by 
a merit of condignity which cannot be 
withholden without positive injury. That 
is deserved by a merit of congtuity 
which is a proper expression of the sense 
which the person rewarding, has of the 
moral excellency of the person reward- 
ed ; which however may be withholden 
without positive injury. Of the former 
kind is the merit, which every good and 
faithful citizen has, of protection in his 
person, liberty and property, and the - 
merit of a laborer who has earned his 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 103 


wages. ‘These cannot be withholden 


without positive injury. Of the latter” 


kind is the merit, which some eminently 
wise and virtuous citizens have, of dis- 
tinguishing honors or marks of esteem. 
Ifthese be withholden, the proper objects 
of them, may indeed be said to be 
neglected, but not positively injured. 
This subject teaches also, in what 
sense God was under obligation to 
accept, on the behalf of the sinner, the 
mediation and atonement of Christ. It 
hath been said, that when Christ offered 
to make atonement for sinners, God was 
under the same obligation to accept the 
offer, as a creditor is to accept the pro- 
posal of any man, who offers to pay the 
debt of another. This is not true : 
| because in matters of property, ali that 
the creditor hath a right to, is his 
property. This being offered him, 
| by whomsoever the offer be made, he 
| has the offer of his right.; and if he de- 
| mand more, he excee ds his right ; and 
he has no more right to refuse to give 
| up the obligation, on the offer of a third 
| person to pay the debt, than to refuse 


a} . el EL) 


104 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


the same, when the same offer is made 
by the debtor himself. All will own, 
_that if a creditor were to refuse to re- 
ce:ve payment, and give up the obliga- 
ticn, when the debtor offers payment ; it 
would be abusive and unjust : and let 
any man assign a reason why it is not 
equally abusive and unjust, not to re- 
ceive the payment, and to give up the 
obligation, when payment is offered by 
a third person. 

But it is quite otherwise in atoning 
for crimes, in which distributive, not 
commutative justice is concerned. As 
the rule of distributive justice is the 
personal character of the person to be 
rewarded or punished, and not property ; 
if a magistrate refuse to accept any sub- 
stitute, and insist on punishing the crim- 

‘inal himself, he treats him no otherwise, 
than according to his personal character, 
and the criminal suffers no injustice o 
abuse. Nor is the magistrate under an 
obligation of distributive justice, « 
justice to. the criminal himself, to ac 
cept a substitute. 

It is true, that the circumstances 0} 


~ 


i 


NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 105 


the case may be such, that it may be 
most conducive to the public good, that 
the offered substitute be accepted: in 
this case wisdom and goodness or pub- 
lic justice will require that it be accept- 
ed, and the criminal discharged. 

This leads me to observe, that it hath 
also been said that when Christ offered 
to become a substitute, and to make 
atonement for sinners, God was under 
no obligation to accept the proposal. 
This, I conceive, isas wide of the truth, 
as that he was under the same obligation 
to accept the proposal, as a creditor is 
to accept the proposal of a third person 
to pay the debt of his friend» The 
truth is, the glory of God and the great- 
est good of the moral system, did re- 
quire, that Christ should become a sub- 
stitute for sinners; and that his offered 
ubstitution should be accepted by God. 
his was dictated and recommended 
py both wisdom and goodness. So far 
erefore as wisdom and goodness could 
nfer an obligation on the Father, to ac- 
spt the substitution of his Son, he was 
der obligation to accept it. Bat this 


— 


we hha «RS 


106 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 


obligation was only that of the third kind 
of justice before explained, a regard tc 
the general good. 

This subject further teaches us, that 
that constitution which requires an atone. 


‘ ment, in order to the pardon of the sin. 


ner, is nothing arbitrary. - That divine 
constitution which is wise and good, as 
being necessary to the good of the mora 
system, is not arbitrary. But if ar 
atonement was necessary, in order tc 


_support the authority of the divine law 


and the honor, vigor and even existence 
of the divine moral government, whil 
sinners are pardoned ; undoubtedly tha 
constitution. which requires an atone. 
ment, in order to the pardon of the sin: 
ner, is the dictate of wisdom and good 
ness, and by no means, of an arbitrary 
spirit. | 

Hence we also learn in what sense thi 
death of Christ renders God propitiou; 
to sinners. It does so only as it su 
ports the authority of his law and gov 
ernment, and renders the pardon of si 
ners consistent with the good of the sy: 
tem, and the glory of God. 


? 


. “NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 107 


Finally ; this subject teaches the 
sroundlessness of that objection to the 
loctrine of atonement, that it represents 
he deity as inexorable. If to refuse to 


pardon sinners unless it be ina way 


which is consistent with the good of the 
moral system, is to be inexorable ; then 
that God will not pardon sinners with- 
but atonement, or in a way which is in- 
consistent with the authority of his law, 
und-with the authority and even exist- 


snce of his moral government ; is indeed. 
a proof, that God is inexorable. But : 


unless it be an instance of inexorability, 
that God will pardon sinners, unless it 
be in a way which is consistent with the 
zood of the moral system, there is’ no 
zround to object to the doctrine of atone- 
ment, that it represents the deity as in- 
pxorable. On the other hand; that 
rod requires an atonement in order to 
ardon, is an instance and proof of truly 
ivine goodness : and if he were to par- 
on »without an atonement, it would 
rove, that he 1s destitute of goodness, 
d regardless, not only of his own glo- 
y, but of the true happiness of the 
ae of his moral creatures. —END. 
a 


wali : 
sy aa 
* Bible Warehgase: 
Po. fey ae f - ; 
- 


A. LYMAN & GO. 

At the sign of the Brae, Insurance 
buildings, Exchange-street, a 

# 4%, 

PORTLAND— ‘ 


2 Pal | 
KE constant hand neexten 
sive assortment of Brgies, whicl 

they will sell at the Philadelphia prices 
They also keep a large collection o 
Law, Theological, Medical, ssical 
,Miscellaneous, and school BOOKS 
Public and private libraries may 
furnished on the most reasonable terms 
wPrintine and Boox-Bin pine 
executed with neatness and dispatel 


DATE , DUE 


i 
B S| 


126 48 


! 


APR 12 754 


a-s[ 


FORM 335 40M 9-42 


232.3 E26N 275040 


